Welcome to Black Perspective and Introspection; One of the best places in the Blogsphere to find insight from a Black perspective not beholden to White America.

January 24, 2005

The fear of black unity.

Upon watching a recent episode of the Discovery Channel, it confirmed the validity of what I had come to realize from observation and history, which is the fact that human instinct directs humans to hunt in groups. Early humans found that their survival odds were increased by banning together for the hunt for nutrients and for protection. Even though human economics has progressed from the stages of hunters and gathers, our biology is still programmed by this natural selection evolutionary tendency morphed over tens of thousand of years. The vast majority of humanities evolution has been in the stage of hunters and gatherers, all other subsequent eras represent only a drop in the bucket of natural selection evolutionary biological programming.

Knowing our biological predispositions and programming is important because it lays the foundation of human understanding and is or should be the starting point of all inferences and conclusions concerning human behavior and proclivities. The human drive to group and hunt is still strong today, but it manifest differently. Team sports are one of the most satisfying adventures for humans because it satisfies an urge to group for competition. Politic parties are another form of ideological human grouping to compete for ones ideological interest. Nations are grouping for global competition. Street gangs are grouping for competition. Organizations are grouping for competition. Religions are grouping for the competition of souls and everlasting life. Families are groupings for competition. Hence, biologically, humans need to feel a sense of belonging to a group to feel protected or to forward their interest through strength in numbers.

In light of this biological predisposition and empirical evidence that grouping together for protection and competition is the rule and has proved successful in human evolution and survival, there is much intransigence to black groupings. There seems to be a fear of black people unifying as a competitive block in this world. The rationalization goes like this: If black people can unify under the banner of black interest, why cannot white people unify under the banner of white interest? That is a fair question. Nothing will stop white people from unifying for competition but the lack of a competitive threat. White are enjoying the bounty from their centuries of colonialism and imperialism predicated and rationalized based upon the inferiority and savage nature of non white peoples. Their disproportionate assets and wealth is the direct result of European conquest on non white people land (and resources), labor and capital. Thus, when non white people who have been oppressed and exploited under white supremacy coalesce, whites see this as a threat and hence rationalization for renewed white collectivism to hold onto their privilege and superiority of wealth and conditions.

The quagmire for black people is that every action creates and equal and opposite reaction. The action of our unification to promote our shared interest of protection and economics creates the equal and opposite reaction in whites to do the same. Thus, the force that originally created our problems, white racism, is invigorated when we attempt to unify and recover to lift and protected the interest of the masses of our people. Whites today generally do not see themselves as part of a white collective competition. They see themselves as individuals instead. The actions of past white collective actions has accrued and passed down so much wealth to white peoples that they do not need to hunt and compete as “whites”. Today, they hunt and compete as members of political parties and nations, to preserve their interest. Therefore, they do not see themselves as “whites”, but rather, “Americans”, “Conservatives” or “Liberal” (few label themselves liberal, however). All these teams are effectively vehicles to provide defense and offense for white interest, in a plurality rule construct where whites represent the plurality in each competitive entity.

Black people forming black unity constructs, whether in the form of Black Nationalism or political parties are threatening because, whites could never have plurality and control over the entity, in a democratic construct. Hence, the block would become a competitive threat to the interest of whites, in perception, if not in reality. The preference is to have blacks join any of the groups controlled by white plurality, which essentially subdues black interest and integrate blacks into the intra-white competition between liberals and conservatives or between America and other nations and regions. Under such diffusion, the black collective globally will never rise, because there is no group effort to defend or proactively promote our interest.

25 Comments:

Noah, this is "Justin." I usually post on Booker Rising and thestateof.com.

Man, you've got a mindblowing way with words.

Your post is validated by my own everyday senses. I work in a mostly white environment. The scariest thing in the world to the average white person is a group of blacks. Individual blacks are okay, but a group poses a threat to which they will surely respond, either by "white flight" or by attack.

What’s up Justin? Yeah you are right. It makes them extremely uneasy to see a grouping of black folks. Some time you will find them confused by how you can speak to a black person that you do not even know. Sometimes I go out to lunch with some white coworkers and we will pass by a black person and the black person and I will greet each other with a head nod or a “whats up”. More than a few times, my white coworkers would ask me if I knew that person and they had a strange look on their face when I told them that we did not know each other. I could tell that they were puzzled and had more questions…but did not know how to ask them. They detected and affinity that seem to make them uncomfortable. Of course I am not saying that this is true of all white folks, but a lot of them seem to be very uncomfortable with black groupings…..unless there is a white person within that group. I think the presence of a white person among a group of blacks gives whites the comfort that the group is “OK” or not grouping against whites, which seems to be their greatest fear…or guilt.

There are consequences to everything. However Whites react out of fear or apprehension or whatever is hardly relevant. To be cognizant of that fact is intelligent. But to adjust or taper our actions in accords to their reactions is counterproductive and counter-to-our-imperatives.

I think it was a Tim Wise piece I just read recently that asked, rhetorically: WHEN HASN'T THERE BEEN A WHITE BACKLASH??

How Whites react isn't important. To be overly concerned with it is, for us, to act or react in fear of what Whites will do is to acquiesce or act in deference to White Supremacy.

Something gots to give. And it's not going to be me.The sooner they get over the idea that we're suppose to subordinate ourselves to them (via political organizations, etc.) and/or "love" them the better. I'm all about speeding up that day.

You know me... I lay it out just like this:America's Majority Rule Democracy = White Supremacy.

Funny how they could readily acknowledge that in Iraq but they'll have a coronary conniption when you spell it out like that to them about their beloved "America".

Noah, have you heard of this book called "The American Directory of Certified Uncle Toms?" If not, buy it today!!! The title is eyebrow-raising, and would seem to imply a poorly-researched, anti-white treatise. But this book is footnoted with quotes, financial data, historical facts, etc regarding the tendency of black leaders to rise, sell out, and then Tom for the white man, all to the detriment of his own people. It covers slaves, civil rights leaders and modern-day Toms. It's also hilarious. My Dad and I have been reading it for the last month or so.

You are right about white fear of black people in the United States! America is such a strange and primitive land when it comes to race. In Europe, people don’t have that kind of fear of black people.

For the sake of clarity, I was wondering if you wouldn’t mind defining some of your terms. I notice that you define racism in America in Black and White (as in whites vs. blacks) terms. When you say black people in the U.S. are you talking just about African-American’s, or are you also including blacks from the Caribbean, Latin America, South America, Sub-Saharan/Northern Africa, South Asian (or Indians) and blacks from Europe that have immigrated to the States? The problem with the term “black” is that it’s a blanket term that inaccurately defines an array of peoples with differing histories, cultures, customs and languages. Most of the people that are defined as “Black” in America have little in common with each other culturally besides their skin color. Also, many so-defined immigrant blacks are conservative and “love” America for the opportunities it affords them. In America, there is little kinship between immigrant blacks and African-American’s.

I was also curious about your definition of “white people.” Are you just talking about WASPS, or are you also including immigrant Italian’s Jews, Irish, Eastern Block Europeans, White Arabs and Israeli’s, Asians etc? Italian’s, Jews and the Irish weren’t even considered white in America until after WWII. The problem with the term “white” is that it is a blanket term that inaccurately defines an array of peoples with differing histories, cultures, customs and languages. Many of the people in America culturally defined as white, do not regard themselves as so. They actually have strong ties to their native culture’s and customs. Many so-called American whites are immigrants, and they have no relationship to slavery and segregation (or White Supremacy) in the United States. And often times they were escaping some form of oppression and poverty in their homelands. I saw on the BBC that over 75% of so-called Whites in America are poor, so I suspect they don’t feel like the beneficiaries of “White Supremacy.” I don’t know, that’s just my hunch.

I don’t care for the terms white and black because they’re just abstractions that were created for the purpose of controlling people physically, psychologically, spiritually, politically and ideologically. And it sure did work!!! Traveling has really illustrated to me how awful those definitions are. Furthermore, in these discussions nobody seems to ever care about the plight of Asians and Latinos. Racist Americans are smart because they reduced everyone down to two (mythical) groups, and then convinced (or conditioned) then to think that way; or more accurately, conditioned them to define themselves and others simplistically. Bloody brilliant really!!

I ask this purely out of curiosity. I’m not naïve to the history of race in America, but I just wanted some specifics. I’ve traveled all over the world extensively, so I don’t see the plight of oppressed peoples in local, or black and white terms. I notice that American blacks define racism in this manner. In most parts of the world, I find that race is not defined this way.

Those that have been here any length of time have joined right end and enjoyed the fruits of Whiteness.While traveling... read some serious examinations of problems local to the areas you travel from the those local to those areas.

And there's no need to define terms in ways to make you feel comfortable with them. Those local to this situation understand what they mean. The extent and limits of them are understood too.

Ali, the English language is not an exact science. In fact, no language, except the language of mathematics, is an exact science. For example, one can take nearly any term in the English language and find multiple and differing definitions and usage. Thus, one must understand and employ CONTEXT to glean proper interpretation of communications.

The context of the use of the term “Black” is a blog written with essays and op-eds by African Americans, primarily discussing the history and effects of slavery, Jim Crow upon the current state of black America. Thus, for all intents and purposes, black is defined as descendants of Africa over the last 400 years. Furthermore, I do not know if you are aware of US statistics, but over 90% of the people legally defined as “Black”, by census definition, are African Americans. Native Born Africans, Afro-Caribbean’s and other blacks represent only about 7% of the total population of “African” people in the USA. This is in stark contrast with Europe, as the vast majority of black peoples are immigrants, there. There are some Dravidian type Asians from India, but they are not considered “black” my Americas historical definition. Rather, they are classified as “Asian”.

I also do not think that one she have the expectations that descendants of American slavery and apartheid should assume that our struggle, in degree and or kind, is the same as every non white person. Thus, one should not expect African Americans to be the voice of “Minorities”, but rather, the voice of Black peoples as defined by the American definition. I know that the Native American was abused more than African Americans, as near genocide took place against them. However, I am very confident in Native Americans ability to tell their story. We can come together to fight a common source of oppression, but we all have our own unique grievances.

That having been said, I do consider myself a Pan African and a voice seeking to promote the rise of all African people to their proper equilibrium with the rest of the world.

Diallo was an immigrant, but that did not protect him from the police. Not to mention, what's with the do over for whites? Even a immigrant white fresh off the boat in the 1940s, long after slavery had offically ended in the states, could partake of privileges like more FHA loans, better schools, etc than the whole black population that had been living there for years.

Often you start off with a small advantage and it gets bigger as the years go on... But then again, this is the same group of people who don't understand that ten all white clubs balance out 1 all black club easy..

You meet me with hostility, I don’t know why? I did not approach this forum like that. I’m not seeking comfort, just clarity. Also, I’m not trying to invalidate your feelings or beliefs. In fact, I believe that your understanding of race is in keeping with your history.

I can’t speak to the validity of the BBC’s statistics, but I’ve heard many times that the majority of white Americans are poor. I’m not from America, so I was wondering why poor whites would be put in the same category with rich whites, when they occupy opposite ends of the American dream? I realize that poor whites have been conditioned to hate blacks, and that all blacks have been conditioned to generalize about (and hate) whites, but it makes very little sense beyond their (accepted) conditioning.

Maybe I phrased my question badly. I suppose I am asking how do poor, struggling whites benefit from white supremacy?

I’m an engineer and scientist (I work on power plants), and I travel all over constantly. I am usually in one place for about six months to a year and then I move. Lately I’ve been to Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Dakar, Senegal, and Southern France. Every place I’ve been has local struggles with race or class. My understanding of these local struggles is the reason I posted in the first place. I find that the people in these places have not been conditioned to reduce everyone down to generalizations. Meaning, not everyone with white skin is considered white, and not all people with brown skin are considered black. I’ve only seen people think this way in America and South Africa (both post-Apartheid nations).

For example, in France, Algerians are not liked because Algeria was a French colony, but in 1957, after a long bloody revolt, the French were forced to leave. There are many Algerians in France, but Algerians physically look many different ways. Some of them look very white; others look Middle Eastern or black African. There are also many Africans in France, but they are liked just fine. French citizens don’t regard all people with brown skin as “black.” They have to know your origins first. Same thing in Italy: black Moroccans are not liked there, but they are differentiated from the black Italians, and blacks that have emigrated there from other countries. My friend’s and I are treated beautifully when in Italy, but the Italians will openly complain about the Moroccans, even though we both share the same skin color. It’s strange and complicated. In everyplace I've travelled, most people can't stand how American's think about race. They think Americans are stupid when it comes to race.

It seems to benefit America economically to maintain the definitions of “black” and “white.” That way the people stay separate (voluntary separatism). It seems so engrained in the minds of the people, that they simply govern themselves. I think this way of thinking must be destoyed.

Noah, as a respected engineer and scientist, I know mathematics, and I can assure you that it is not objective or exact (it’s so subjective that it’s maddening). I don’t know why people think this? Statistics are subjective too. So much so, that they cannot be trusted, but they should be used as a resource. People (including engineers and scientists) usually turn to statistics to support what they think they already know about a problem.

First of all, you might be making assumptions or generalizations about our generalizations. Should the president be elected only by absolute consensus or by the general rule (generalization) of how people voted? Thus, one can say that the president in a democracy is elected by generalizations concerning the way people vote. Hence, it is a generalization to say that Americans elected George W. Bush as president, because it is not true of THIS Americans….because I did not vote. However, the statement is the dominant truth, although not the absolute truth. Besides, none of us writing on this blog believe that all white people are a certain way. We know that even though white wealth in America is 14 times that of blacks in America, that notwithstanding, there are some blacks who are wealthier than some whites. Nowhere have we stated that we assume that what is true for the whole is thus true for each and ever sub part. That is simply your assumption about what we have written.

There are probably more poor white people in the USA than there are poor black peoples. However, black poverty rate in America is 3 times the poverty rate of whites. Black unemployment rates is constantly 2 ½ times the rate of whites. As I mentioned before, white wealth in America is 14 times that of blacks. Thus, when we talk about this issue we are talking about the general rule of the collective and not focusing on the exceptions to the rule, which you seem to want us to do.

Of course this is all the product of conditioning as every action creates a reaction. But the condition is a reaction to centuries of actions promoting white supremacy. What do poor whites have to gain? Self esteem by transference. It helps them psychologically cope with their failures as individuals, by associating with the supremacy of the white race, their science, their achievements and their wealth. They can rationalize that blacks just have these things because of Affirmative Action…other wise, they masses of blacks would be poorer than them.

Ali, there was no hostility in what I wrote in response to you. You quoted a hilarious stat and, as someone seeking clarity, you of all people should respect the fact that the stats you cited were not clearly the reflection of the reality in America and hardly in line with the American definition of "poor".

And you can take your conditioning rationale back along with your trumped up stats.

Either you can clarify how it is that you think 75% or a majority of Whites in America are poor or you cannot. The economic status of Whites have nothing to do with whether poor Whites are included in the whole realm of White Supremacy.

Further, I really don't think you have a basis for saying that we have placed poor Whites and elite/rich ones in "the same category". Again, their relative status is IRRELEVANT!!

Supporting America's system of White Supremacy cuts across class lines. And most all Whites are complicit with it regardless of class. Most all Whites (obviously from our (Black) vantage point right here where it happens) see the system as an extension of themselves and feel, whether they admit it or not, that they have a vested interest in it.

So, poor or not, most all Whites adhere to White Supremacy no matter how large or small their roles are in it.

It's funny how you sound strikingly like a number of Whites express their concerns about how unequal things are (racially) in America. What's so similar is that you and they place the onus on Black people to raise the consciousness of (poor) White people as if Whites can't possibly be responsible for themselves.

If you want to forward the idea that Blacks should link their struggle with poor Whites (first you ought to examine the history of such) then the same thing works in reverse. If, as it seems to be, your argument is to say that both Blacks and poor Whites have the same "oppressor" in rich, elite Whites, etc. then that's something that poor Whites have to realize independently from what Blacks say or think.

Until you can cite where poor Whites have reached out to Blacks without having a hand tainted by the same type of racist, paternalistic and subordinating mindset as their richer brethren, then you have nothing worth speaking of. It's fine to speak in the abstract... until it's time to speak about reality and how the facts on the ground play out.

If you can outline how such a collective, cross-racial struggle can be waged without sacrificing and compromising Black Liberation Imperatives... then I'm all ears. But, if all you have are naive questions then I suggest you verify the information you have first and then do further study about the topic. And, most importantly, don't divorce your notions from what the reality is.

Poor Whites vote their interest, for one. And their interest since day one, immigrant or otherwise, has been on that sided with White elites in one way or the other. If nothing else, they haven't been enraptured by the thought of having equality with Blacks. The history is clear on that.

Look at the history and formation of labor unions, for example.

And, please... come with something more sophisticated (i.e. less simplistic) than ALL Blacks have been "conditioned" to "HATE" Whites (and generalize about them).

WHAT DOES "HATE" HAVE TO DO WITH IT?(Note: No one here speaks in those terms or with that as a motivating impetus. If you can't understand something, then you're automatically implicated. Check yourself and your pretenses...)

If you were earnest, you wouldn't try to reduce anything written here to something as inane as that. If you had any integrity you wouldn't think such a simplistic statement would be relevant here, let alone have some type of resonance.

Now, you... practice what you preach and break out the definition(s). It's just that simple. You cited some ridiculously unqualified stat and then tried to justify it. Define what "poor" means or how it is classified.

And, as I noted above, poor Whites overwhelmingly cast their votes for White Supremacy more directly proffered by their elite brethren time and time again. Their actions and inactions are clearly motivated by and are acts in furtherance of White Supremacy.

Their economic status doesn't let them off the hook. White Supremacy exist and is practiced on multiple levels.

When poor Whites revolt against the system of inequality that allows them too to be taken advantage of and replace it with a true democratic system then they can be consider to not be adherents to or complicit with White Supremacy.

First, you should do some studying in an effort to answer your own question.

You can start off with a comparative study. Answer - what's the relative status of Whites as opposed to Blacks. 75% certainly aren't as poor as Blacks are.

(Note: Stats on wealth distribution are not the same thing as stats that say who is and who isn't "poor".)

Also, study who is reflected and catered to in this society. Overwhelmingly, it's the sentiments of Whites. Poor Whites, regardless of their condition (and 75% of them are not "struggling"), can live vicariously through their more successful brethren who run things here. They benefit because the first slice of White Elite left-overs are for them or at least promised to them.

I was not making generalizations, or assumptions about your comments. In fact, I was not judging you in any way. I never reduced the remarks on this forum to anything negative whatsoever. If some of my comments appeared to have contradicted yours, it is not the result of some intellectual deficiency, or lack of knowledge on my part. I’m very knowledgeable of American history and world history (not to mention mathematics and science). I am not American however, and you must remember that the majority of people of African descent around the world do not think the way you do. We have different experiences. But most importantly I was asking questions, not attacking you. Please don’t confuse difference of opinion with personal attack. It makes one feel that debate is not welcome – only like-minded opinion. NmagiNATE viciously attacks anyone with an opinion that differs from his own. He’s a bully! He says he is not hostile, and then writes a hostile note. NmagiNATE, I think you should reconsider your communication skills. I’m sure everyone on this site finds your “reductive” commentary hostile and boorish from time to time. I believe there are infinite galaxies between what you “actually” know and what you “think” you know. You are certainly not as erudite and sophisticated as Noah.

My apologies if I come of offensive….as you noted….it too is the product of conditioning as most who visit this blog and comment do so in attack mode.

I do not think that either of us can lay claim of baring witness to the facts of what and how most “Africans” in the world think. In fact, nearly all people think alike in abstraction, but vary only in the specifics. Dealing with “isms” is a global phenomenon, with only the description of the victims and or perpetrators, or role, varying.

I also spend time debating on African Forums for discussion. Also, a good number of my closest friends are African born. Thus, I am not totally void of the African perspective or its root in the human perspective. What I do think is true of many Africans, as well as African Americans is that they often cannot see the forest due to the trees. Thus, they only think about the trees and not the forest. Many only think about what is in there immediate sensory focus. However, most of what affects us today is from forces outside of our immediate focus which reverberates reaction that effect phenomenon and conditions within our focus. This can and does alter the perception of the root of ones problems, because most people will blame it only that which they can bare direct witness too. For example, many Africans see their problems and poverty to be the product of corruption of current leaders…when that is only a SYMPTOM of their problems and not the root cause.

If I don’t know much (since what I “actually” know is apparently far less than what I “think” I know) then how can I bully anyone? Certainly those with more knowledge and skill than what I possess can easily shame and make mockery of my “bullying” attempts. But, given the fact that you have not contended with anything I’ve said that exposed the errors in your thinking (especially your citation of unsubstantiated and unqualified stats... and your opinion based on them) then we can acknowledge your comments for what they are. Irrelevant and unfounded fluff.

You apparently posted here with some preconceived notion about me. So, obviously, your “You’re Being Hostile” Wolf Cry reflects the mindset you had coming into this and not what I said.

Either you want to explore this idea of how the brothers here include poor Whites with elite/rich Whites in White Supremacy or you don’t. Obviously, you are the one who has a problem with someone disagreeing with you.

I pointed out the error in your stats or at the very least your misleading/misguided articulation of it and you drop the whole conversation. If you have reason to believe what you say then you can defend it (substantiate it) regardless as to how you perceive it being “attacked”. Seeing as how you haven’t then its only logical to conclude that you either have no reason to believe what you presented, that you wanted to promote the idea for some undisclosed reason (perhaps because you wanted your beliefs/positions to be affirmed), and/or I have effectively left you with nothing to that you can logically say in furtherance of the idea you presented - i.e. you are reconsidering your position or having to acknowledge that you have less than a logical reason to support/promote it.

Let’s see you do what others have failed to do. That is, stay on the topic and forward the notions they want us to consider - i.e. point-and-counterpoint. You say your piece. I (or we) say ours. You then say either how you agree or disagree with our reasoning and why yours is more logical or true.

It’s just that simple. Obviously, I must have bullied you easily. You dropped and changed the subject pretty damn quick. “Noah, what’s your plan to make the world better?” :) lol

Well, I can say from experience Noah, Faheem and I share similar philosophies and stipulate to the same knowledge base.

So you can draw careless comparisons for whatever reason you would like but I know, again, from experience, the Cyber-World over, that I stand with these brothers and they stand with me. Sure, our styles aren't exactly the same but we stand on the same ideals and speak to the same principles. And no amount of little comments from people like you ALI can separate that.

But, let's just say... I'll let them tell you what they think about what I know and my ability to articulate my perspectives (and how it reflects things similar to their own). Ask them what they think.

And, once you're done with that: How about returning to the topic or the idea you posited here...

Yes, we are all on the same page here….after a long history of debate and sometimes disagreement with one and other on other forums…we have come to realize that we share much more in common than difference…in regards to the struggle and black unity. I can say that there mutuality on this blog, in regards to intellect, passion, respect and the desire to speak the dominant truth. We cannot be divided…but we are open to be defeated…by logically proving what we say Is wrong by virtue of demonstrating what is correct via the premise, inference and conclusion that logically negates it.

I’m a brother, who’s also a casual observer of this site. I’ve learned more from Ali and Roland in their brief posts than from anyone else I’ve read on this forum. Most things said on this site are just the typical inexperienced Afrocentric stuff that you here most black folk say. If you have a rudimentary knowledge of black history, then you’ve heard all this stuff before. I’m a university student in Africana Studies and we’re always looking for brothers with different views. When I came across these cat’s words I was blown away! Especially Roland, that guy was so F-ing smart and witty! Those two are obviously extremely educated and enlightened brothers who care deeply about black folks. You should do everything you can to keep them because they really elevated the dialogue on this forum beyond the same old complaints. Even from a literary perspective Roland was F-ing dope… you gotta admit! He toyed with you cats and you couldn’t respond articulately, because he was on some deep philosophical shit!

Not once did any of you guys “seriously” engage their ideas – but they always engaged yours with precision. Those guys are on such a higher level, I’m sure they got bored with all the typical black whining and finger pointing. Roland “obviously” didn’t leave because he couldn’t out-debate you… give me a break, that’s a joke! Even you cats don’t really believe that. Any educated person could see that he was on a higher educational and intellectual level. It was funny how you guys repeatedly misinterpreted all of their comments. That’s how I could tell you really didn’t understand them. NmagiNATE was the worse, he kept bringing up Affirmative Action when responding, even though neither one of them ever brought it up. Silly and trifling as hell!! Ali, if you’re still listening, I want to hear more about your experiences with race and traveling!!! These hacks have probably never been on a plane!

Why do you guys think you are all mathematical and scientific and shit? Y’all ain’t dropping science on this blog…believe dat! I haven’t encountered many indisputable facts presented on this site. All you do is express opinions, but if someone disagrees like those brilliant cats, you then accuse them of being illogical, too opinionated and not factual. It’s lame. If you continue to drive everyone away with a different opinion, then your site will “continue” to be just a refuge for like-minded complainers. Even though you guys unduly attacked those brothers, I could tell they really got to you. You guys aren’t used to dealing with brothers that sophisticated. All of a sudden you guys perked up, because you finally had a new villain. But then again, it’s your favorite villain…other blacks! Obviously you guys are not successful, because successful blacks don’t create blogs to wallow in self-pity…they’re too busy living their lives and stacking paper. If you guys were successful, some other simpletons would be calling “you” Negro-Cons… and you’d still be crying yourselves to sleep every night. That’s how the merry-go-round of black ignorance goes round and round! So Roland and Ali, if you’re still around, please come back… some of us out here in cyber-space really appreciate you. All of my friends in Africana Studies have been hanging on your words for days now.

Claude, why don't you list/link the blogs or sites that have this higher dialogue you're associating with the likes of Ali and Roland.

This is an opinion blog. The things presented here are commentaries that reflect the opinions of the bloggers here. No claims have been made about "droppin' science" or knowledge or whatever.

I too will readily say that I present elementary things that should be known and understood by even a cursory knowledge of "Black" history. Yet, ALI nor ROLAND were apparently unable to logically contend with what I put forward or at least acted like they were ignorant of those things.

"It was funny how you guys repeatedly misinterpreted all of their comments."

Demonstrate it. Don't just claim it!!

Ali asked, in essence, how could poor Whites be included in analyzing White Supremacy... included with rich/elite Whites.

Demonstrate how I misinterpreted that!!Demonstrate how his 75% of White Americans are poor was on a "higher level".

Demonstrate how something Roland said was on a "higher level".

It's rather ironic how the very same thing you're trying to say, that we say things that have be hashed and rehashed over and over again... was the same exact thing I said about Roland's WE DON'T DO's and WE SHOULD DO's.

Very high level stuff there or new candidate for the Player Haters Crew.

Like we said to Roland, elevate your game and produce what you say we lack. This side-issue BS ain't about nothing. (linguistics intended)

Show us the "higher level" Claude.Either do it here (sending Faheem an e-mail of your higher level commentary or essay) or provide us with links where you, Roland, ALI or anyone else in your Higher Level Squad puts it down. I'd appreciate it.

Signifying ain't sh*t!! Show us the higher level on cyber-wax!!

And when you get finish... make an actual comment relevant to this or whatever blog topic you post on.All this dwelling on personalities is an indictment against what you claim about you and the "higher level" you talk about.

It seems to me, as you, Nmagninate, that Ali, Roland and Claude are all one in the same…not that it matters, because one is judge by the substance of their rhetoric and not what they choose to call themselves. In the absence of others praising his or her arguments or backing them, he or she has created multiply cyber personalities to do just that.

If that is not the case…oh well. The fact is that is that all of those personalities have failed to DEMONSTRATE. Making a claim is not a demonstration of truth…it is only a demonstration of ones ability to use language. One can use language to communicate an untruth by virtue of deceptions and or ignorance. Any one can disagree or say that another is wrong, but that is not a demonstration or proof that they are wrong.

However, we welcome opinions and demonstrations. For those who truly think we are misguided and want to set us on the righteous path….please present the latter or demonstration and not simply the demonstration of your use of the English language.

Noah, that’s all I’m saying. And it is rather curious how there are so many cheerleaders for people who, at best, merely stated their sentiments (i.e. opinions not facts or even more exact logic) about what is said here and not whether what we say is untrue, fallacious or otherwise in err. All Roland and Ali did was stipulate to their own preferences or things they like or would rather emphasize (and in some cases based on ridiculous hypotheticals or other untenable ideas that don’t relate to the real world and real world dynamics.)

But it’s rather ironic when their pretenses are exposed and the validity of what they say they see as flawed in our thinking is called into question they shrink away from direct point-and-counterpoint on the very things they put up for discussion.

What happened to Roland’s “You don’t talk about solutions” pretense?

SHRINK... When it came time for him to produce things that are effective/functional solutions he immediately declined from holding himself accountable to the same standard he wanted to hold us to and eventually disappeared, never broaching the subject himself. This is what I have long since termed Rookie Tactics (actually White Boy Tactics but some brothers get offended when I equate their weak reasoning and debating shenanigans to the weak tactics of White guys I’ve encountered on the net.)

Rookies, like spoiled children think that all the rules should apply to everyone else and not them.

I, for one, make it a practice not to state things and present things as facts (like ALI did with the 75% thingy) when I don’t know, can't stand behind, verify or vouch for what I present. That’s a matter of Integrity. Integrity also says that the you be willing to examine yourself and produce things along the lines of the very criticism you make of others. Roland was unable or rather unwilling to do that.

So, it stands as it seems to have been for quiet some time that I (we) stand unchallenged. Plenty of people talk big game but few step up to the plate and DEMONSTRATE.

Instead, they employ all sorts of off-topic Rookie Tactics...

I wait for the day that there is an Active & Adequate Opposition. It seems that everywhere we go few if any show up and produce. I give plenty of people I disagree with props for being able to effectively articulate their ideas. But, as I say on "White" sites, those with knowledge (understanding, etc.) have no obligation to peacefully co-exist with ignorance.

Likewise, those who can't effectively articulate a logical argument contrary to the opinions here get no automatic play. Come with the hard facts and rock-solid hard reasoning/logic or don't come at all.